Mathematical model predicts Romney landslide

Romney Landslide

Allan J. Lichtman has devised a model to predict Presidential election winners called the 13 Keys model. He claims his model predicts an Obama victory, but that is only because of his liberal bias. We at use his model to prove that Romney is sure to win in a landslide.

His model consists of 13  yes/no questions that need to be answered. If 8 or more answers are “yes”, the model predicts a victory for the incumbent; if 7 or fewer answers are “yes” then the incumbent will lose.  Allan Lichtman answers these questions, and comes up with a win for Obama BUT HE OBVIOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS WRONGLY.

In this table, we provide our own analysis:

Party mandate: After the midterm elections, does the incumbent party hold more seats in the House of Representatives? NO. Republicans took the mid-term elections in a landslide.
Contest: Is there no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination? YES. Even though we all wanted Hilary to run, there was no serious challenger.
Incumbency: Is the incumbent party’s candidate the sitting president? YES. Although there is some serious doubt as to whether Kenyan Muslim Obama is actually legally president, we will have to admit he is at least acting as president right now.
Third Party: Is there NOT a significant third party challenge? YES. It is true that there is no significant third party challenge.
Short-term economy: Is the economy NOT in recession during the election campaign? NO. The economy very clearly IS in recession! Just look around you!
Long-term economy: Is real per capita economic growth during the term equal to or exceeding mean growth during the previous two terms? NO. Growth has been the worst during this presidency than ever in the entire history of anything. I remember hearing that in Sean Hannity’s show once.
Policy change: Did the incumbent administration affect major changes in national policy? NO. He basically accomplished nothing, because he’s totally incompetant.
Social unrest: Was there NOT sustained social unrest during the term? NO. There was social unrest, both at home (Tea Party protests, Occupy Wall Street) and abroad (Arab Spring).
Scandal: Is the incumbent administration untainted by major scandal? NO. There have been tons of major scandals, ranging from Soylendra to Fast and Furious and most recently the Benghazi Embassy fiasco.
Foreign/military failure: Did the incumbent administration NOT suffer major failure in foreign or military affairs? NO. There have been a number of major failures, most recently the failure to predict and stop the attack on the Benghazi Embassy.
Foreign/military success: Did the incumbent administration achieve a major success in foreign or military affairs? NO. The only thing Obama pretends is a success of the assassination of Bin Laden, which everyone knows is really due to the planning and groundwork laid by George Bush.
Incumbent charisma: Is the incumbent party’s candidate charismatic or a national hero? NO. He’s a goofy, out-of-touch weird-looking and seems like the kind of person who would like rap music and basketball… if you know what I mean.
Challenger charisma: Is the challenging party’s candidate NOT charismatic or a national hero? NO. Mitt Romney is handsome and charming and has perfect hair. Who could not like a guy with perfect hair?

Clearly, Romney will win in an overwhelming landslide.  So you can all relax now.


chart by

6 Replies to “Mathematical model predicts Romney landslide”

  1. Let’s get together on November 7th and see if you’re right, and Nate Silver/538 AND Sam Wang/Princeton AND Betfair AND Intrade are all wrong.

    I mean, you have a very rigorous thorough model here, one that takes in to account polling (at the state level, thanks to the electoral college), the relative strength of the candidates, and changes in campaign financing thanks to Citizens United. Yup, your model isn’t just some simple little list of your opinion about things you think are important.

    No, it is a model!

    See you November 7th.

  2. How come you failed on that prediction and Obama won his 2nd term? That is why you need to be careful. I am a Christian and I already knew that Obama would win because you forgot that I didn’t forget and that was history repeating itself. Mitt Romney didn’t win his home state of Massachusetts and history shows that only 3 Presidents has won the election by losing their home states (Polk lost Tennessee and won the election in 1844, Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey and won the re-election in 1916, and Richard Nixon lost New York State and won the election in 1968.) That is why you need to check that.

    1. Nixon’s home state was New York? Lolwut? Better check your facts there. Romney losing his home state had nothing to do with his losing the election, any more than Gore losing Tennessee mattered in 2000 (he still after all won the general election). Romney needed Florida, Ohio, and a couple of small states. He lost because Democratic turnout, particularly among minorities, was very high,and because he ran a poor campaign (both at the wholesale and retail levels).
      In the final weeks of the campaign, Romney’s strategy had two major flaws: first, he tried to base a whole lot on taking quotes like “you didn’t build that” out of context. Wrong time to go negative. Second, he was stuck with a stance on the auto bailout that didn’t play well in Ohio, and he tried to just blatantly lie – both about his Detroit bailout stance and then later on Jeep moving production to China. For a guy whose policy positions had evolved/changed over time, the lying was a deal breaker with voters. Voters expect and tolerate a degree of it from their candidates, but his record of inconsistency gave him little wiggle room.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *